Click. The search for Curio leads cybersleuths down a twisted path.

CLICK. Response by "Karen Curio Jones" to Mark Sauer's article, "A Web of Intrigue" in the San Diego Union-Tribune, dated September 24, 2000.

Click. Stalking Curio Jones - A Reply to the San Diego Union-Tribune
By Alex Constantine © 2000

IS SATANIC ABUSE OF KIDS REAL?  Satanism and Ritual Abuse Archive by Karen Curio Jones. Click. 




Click. One in 10 women who use the internet has had sex with a man she first met online at work.  Employers are paying women wages for 102 minutes per day so they can talk to their lovers. This Sexual Revolution makes the old one "tame"!

CLICK. Response by "Karen Curio Jones" to Mark Sauer's article, "A Web of Intrigue" in the San Diego Union-Tribune, dated September 24, 2000.

Union-Tribunes' Mark Saur writes: "Armed with a telephoto lens and a laptopcomputer with a hidden camera, Michelle Devereaux headed south from San Francisco on a mission to find Curio."                 

The search for Curio leads cybersleuths down a twisted path.
By Mark Sauer, staff writer, San Diego Union-Tribune September 24, 2000

Armed with a telephoto lens and a laptop computer with a hidden camera, Michelle Devereaux headed south from San Francisco on a mission to find Curio.

Devereaux and her friend Barry camped out for hours at the computer lab in SDSU' s Love Library, Curio' s favorite place for launching salvos in her cyberspace campaign. Curio didn' t show.

Just when Devereaux was about to give up, however, she spotted a trim, middle-aged woman with longish brown hair sitting amid the forest of computer terminals.

Was it Curio? Devereaux had seen her once, even chatted with her briefly, on a reconnaissance tour of the computer lab a month before. But she had to be sure.

She dispatched Barry with the laptop camera to a vacant machine across from their target with orders to start snapping surreptitiously. Then Devereaux took out a monocular so she could get a long-range view of what the woman was reading on her screen.


Devereaux hastily scribbled a note to Barry: "It' s Curio! She' s reading an e-mail I sent her last night!" She handed the note to the student sitting next to her: "Would you please give this to that guy over there, the one with the baseball cap that says ' Psycho' ?" The kid looked at her like she was crazy, but did as Devereaux requested.

A dozen or more people from San Diego to Washington State and beyond -- all victims of Curio' s Internet missives -- had been trying to unmask the notorious cyber crusader for nearly five years.

Now Devereaux had her in the cross hairs. But the photos wouldn't be enough. She hatched a plan: Barry would wait out front with the telephoto lens. Devereaux would pick the right moment and approach Curio; she' d get spooked, head for the parking lot and Barry would photograph her license plate.

Then they' d have her. It would have worked, too, if Barry hadn' t got bored waiting and gone back inside for a soda.

Curio got away on that day last October. The photos of her from the secret camera weren't that clear; nobody recognized the woman staring at the SDSU computer screen.

It would be another eight months before those who have railed against her online, have sued her, have traded implied threats with her and reported her to the police would get the answer to the question tormenting them:

Who is Curio and why is she saying such nasty things about us on the Internet?

Amid her many hundreds of Internet postings, Curio offers several glimpses into her background.

In May 1997 she wrote that she had "worked in many facets of the child abuse field for 10 years." She had "seen all manner of atrocities committed against children and witnessed all types of adult games played to avoid culpability."

Ten years earlier, Curio learned of a new form of child abuse. "Having a 17-year personal background in the ' occult' has educated me about types of individuals who walk this path.

"My particular interest is in the subject of ritual abuse."

The words "ritual abuse" were often preceded by the word "satanic" in a debate that raged across America for 15 years, from the early 1980s to mid-' 90s.

Certain psychotherapists and some police investigators and prosecutors purported to have evidence of underground cults, satanic and otherwise, who had taken control of day-care centers and were abusing preschoolers in blood rituals.

These supposedly involved animal and even human sacrifice, cannibalism, torture and all manner of sexual abuse.

The ritual abuse scare rocked the nation. The McMartin Pre-School case in Manhattan Beach in the early ' 80s was followed by the Dale Akiki prosecution in San Diego and scores of similar cases around the United States, Canada, Britain and Australia. The media stories were endless.

Following the acquittals of the McMartin defendants and Akiki (who won more than $3 million from local authorities in a civil lawsuit), the theory of a satanic-ritual-abuse conspiracy was discredited by mental health experts and the co.

A 10-year investigation of satanic-ritual-abuse allegations by FBI Special Agent Ken Lanning turned up virtually nothing. Yet certain people persist in their belief in "these heinous crimes against children." Curio claims to be able to document 50 such cases worldwide.

In her zeal to protect "young victims," Curio has posted extensive information about notable individuals who worked hard over the years to debunk the notion of satanic-ritual abuse.

Most of these people have stated their conclusions regarding ritual abuse in public forums and have been questioned in open court, where no one is anonymous.

But now they were being challenged -- libeled, in their words -- by someone who operated at a distinct advantage. Curio (who often went by the full pseudonym Karen Curio Jones) said her anonymity was necessary "for safety reasons" and she protected it fiercely.

That drove her opponents in the Internet "flame wars" nuts.

"You can' t imagine what this does to you until you've gone through it," said Carol Hopkins, who is near the top of Curio' s Internet enemies list.

"She has disrupted our personal lives, called employers, talked to law enforcement. "She makes all sorts of unsubstantiated claims. There are a lot of crazies but there and some may be willing to act. It is truly frightening."

Carol Hopkins was a natural target for Curio. A former school administrator, Hopkins was an outspoken member of the 1991-92 San Diego County Grand Jury that blasted the child-protection system after investigating wide-ranging allegations of zealous social workers removing children from their homes without cause.

Hopkins later formed the Justice Committee and publicized what she identified as false allegations of child abuse here and around the nation.

Curio blamed Hopkins and two San Diego Union-Tribune reporters (Jim Okerblom and the author of this story) for ending official interest here in satanic-ritual abuse:

"In my opinion, Carol Hopkins, Mark Sauer and Jim Okerblom misreported on and gave a one-sided portrayal of ritual abuse for the county of San Diego nonstop for approximately six years," Curio wrote in a post revealing Hopkins' recent move to Mexico.

"Her criticism of me on the Internet was constant," Hopkins said.

"She accused me of protecting child molesters, insinuated I was a child molester, claimed I don' t believe child abuse exists. Curio was a big factor in my decision to give up the Justice Committee.

"I moved to Mexico for a fresh start and then she tracks me down here.

I've learned that nobody escapes the Internet."

Another of Curio' s favorite subjects is Elizabeth Loftus, professor of psychology and adjunct professor of law at the University of Washington in Seattle.

An internationally known expert on the workings of memory, Loftus has written numerous articles and books decrying the idea that trauma associated with child sexual abuse acts to repress the memory of such horrible events.

And she has testified for the defense in many trials (including the Akiki case), explaining how memories -- especially those of young children -- can be manipulated, even by well-meaning people.

According to Curio, Loftus "colluded with" Hopkins to write the critical grand jury reports, a claim both women denounce as absurd.

Loftus said she recently was invited to deliver the keynote address at a convention of the New Zealand Psychology Society and arrived to find herself the center of controversy.

Accusations that she conspires to protect child molesters, many fueled by Curio' s Internet postings, led to a story in the Wellington Evening Post and stoked the talk-show fires.

"I spent most of my time defending myself against misrepresentations,"

Loftus said. "People attending my speech were met by individuals with 27-page booklets -- much of it compiled from the Internet -- accusing me of all sorts of vile stuff.

"These kinds of things can have a life beyond the time and geographical borders we' re used to thinking of."

But if Hopkins and Loftus consider Curio a tireless nuisance, Michael Aquino considered her a threat to his safety and that of his family.

Aquino said that is why he filed suit in San Diego Superior Court against a local Internet provider in a failed attempt to learn Curio' s identity.

It seems inevitable that the retired Army intelligence officer from San Francisco would loom large on Curio' s radar screen.

He was, after all, a top official in the late Anton LaVey' s Church of Satan and founded the Temple of Set, a quasi-religious institution that many consider satanic.

In the late 1980s, Aquino was investigated in a McMartin/Akiki-type case centering on allegations of satanic abuse at a day-care center at San Francisco' s Presidio military base.

Aquino, who was a lieutenant colonel, was questioned because of his satanic beliefs. Neither Aquino nor anyone associated with him was ever charged, much less tried and convicted, in the Presidio case -- a point Curio concedes.

But that hasn' t stopped her from insinuating he abuses children in satanic rituals.

"My basic interest was to identify an anonymous person who, because of his/her obsessions and delusions, might pose a threat to the safety of myself and my family," Aquino said.

Curio claims that Aquino was booted out of the Army as a result of the Presidio investigation.

Aquino, who adamantly denies any involvement in the Presidio day-care center or satanic_ritual abuse, said that in addition to the Bronze Star (1970) and many other military awards, he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal in 1994 following his voluntary retirement from the Army.

In the beginning, Michelle Devereaux said, she was not a target of Curio but a compatriot.

Devereaux, 43, has two grown sons, a plethora of tattoos and body piercings and an extraordinary knowledge of cyberspace after 20 years in the computer business.

She also once believed she had been abused by a satanic cult herself.

"Curio and I were coming from the same place -- I spent eight or nine years in therapy, all the while researching satanic-ritual abuse," Devereaux said. "It wasn' t until 1999 that I exited the cloud of unknowing." Curio, she said, "sealed it for me that this stuff is all a bunch of crap.

When she came along doing her Internet thing and saying all this stuff about these people, I finally realized how crazy it all was. "I feel sorry for her on one hand. But she' s vicious. And she' s got her supporters. She was really hurting people. I decided to get involved."

Devereaux became a cybersleuth. She traced Curio' s Internet posts to specific computers.

Besides her home computer, Curio posted from computer labs at SDSU, USD and UCSD as well as from Children' s Hospital, Sharp HealthCare Centers, San Diego Public Library, San Diego County Library and local cybercafes.

So determined was she to protect her anonymity, Curio not only favored public computers but also forged her online identity and scrambled her electronic trail.

But Devereaux eventually smoked her out.

"I came up with a way to monitor the Internet so every time she posted, got paged," Devereaux said.

She had contacted police in San Diego and San Francisco about Curio' s "cyberstalking crusade," yet failed to garner much interest. But Devereaux found a sympathetic ear at SDSU Police headquarters on campus.

"In some of the Internet correspondence, it was alleged that Curio had made threats and might be carrying a gun. That raised our interest," said Detective Susan McCrary.

She and Lt. Eddie Gilbert agreed to work with Devereaux to catch Curio as she posted from SDSU. Devereaux turned over her secret photos and a detailed description of Curio; the computer lab was alerted.

In late May, Gilbert got a sudden call from Devereaux: Curio was posting.

"I rushed over, but she was gone," he said.

Then on Tuesday, June 13 at 1 p.m., Devereaux' s pager again went off.

She called Gilbert immediately; he again hustled over to the computer lab in the center of campus.

And there she was.

"I was in plain clothes with another investigator," Gilbert said. "She didn' t match the photo I had -- she' d cut her hair. But I was pretty sure it was her. I requested back-up from uniformed officers because of the information about a gun.

"(Curio) moved to another computer and I noticed she had signed on as [email protected] -- one of her aliases. We moved in and detained her.

"She was extremely upset, kind of paranoid, really. She said dangerous people had been after her for some time, that they were out to get her and now the police were cooperating with them."

The officers searched Curio' s bag but found no gun.

"When we asked if she' d been using university computers to harass people on the Internet, she said, ' I post messages and information.' She denied ever harassing anyone in her life, however."

But Curio was anonymous no longer.

Her name, Gilbert said, is Diana L. Napolis, 44, of La Mesa. She worked for San Diego County as a child-protection-services investigator for many years before leaving that post in 1996.

"She told us she is self-employed now, working in child-custody cases downtown," McCrary said.

The police warned her not to use SDSU computers any longer. "One of our big concerns on this campus is stalking and harassment," McCrary said.

Then they let her go.

Within days of Curio' s apprehension at SDSU, state records show, a Diana L. Napolis obtained a marriage and family counseling license from the state of California, enabling her to practice psychotherapy.

Napolis ignored several requests to be interviewed for this story.

Whatever motivates her remains pretty much a secret.

But now that Curio has been exposed, no one involved is quite sure what to do.

"It' s like the dog who chases cars and finally catches one," Devereaux said. "Now what?"

SDSU police say they are maintaining a file on her and if there' s enough evidence of cyberstalking and harassment, they may recommend that the district attorney file charges. California is one of the few states with an anti-cyberstalking law.

"It' s a very gray area, though," McCrary said. "She hasn' t made any physical threats. Everything' s been done in a public forum."

But pulling back the curtain on Curio to reveal Napolis has effectively stripped her of her power, Devereaux contends.

That may be enough, Aquino said: "Now that this person has been identified, that ' faceless' threat no longer exists. She is now just another woman with ' satanic ritual-abuse' sexual fantasies."

Carol Hopkins likens Napolis to "the mythical Japanese soldier stumbling out of the jungle still fighting World War II."

"Conspiracy theories about satanic-ritual abuse have been thoroughly discredited by reasonable people, but true believers remain."

She said the Curio case boils down to a civil rights issue: Do First Amendment rights of free speech trump the rights of those being accused of a crime (child molestation) to know their accuser' s identity?

"On the Internet now, you can say almost anything you want, and there' s nothing to stop you," Hopkins said. "When we didn' t know who Curio was, she had power. To finally learn she' s a nobody, why even bother with her now?"

Of course Diana Napolis/Karen Curio Jones has her own opinion, posted on the Internet:

"This is still the United States and I believe it is wrong to try and censor speech just because you don' t like the message."

First posted on RuMill News Read Only Forum 9/26/00

              Amanpour: " and journalism died in the 90s"
     CNN Foreign Correspondent, Christiane Amanpour's face is so well
known in war zones that during Kosovo, this headline became famous:


     "U.S. soldiers...with whom I now have more than a passing
     acquaintance...joke that they track my movements in order
     to know where they will be deployed next."

     Amanpour on the change in the news:

     "....the powers that be...the money men,
     have decided over the last several years to eviscerate us.
     It actually costs a bit of money to produce good travel, to put on
     compelling viewing."

     "A long-time, and highly awarded colleague of mine, has gotten out
     of the business altogether, saying news and
     journalism died in the nineties."

     -- Christiane Amanpour to RTNDA2000

     Date sent: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:05:32 -0700
     Send reply to:
     From: Don Fitzpatrick <> Subject: 09/18/00
-- ShopTalk



     Monday September 18, 2000

     "U.S. soldiers...with whom I now have more than a passing
     acquaintance...joke that they track my movements in order
     to know where they will be deployed next."

     -- Christiane Amanpour to RTNDA2000


     Here's The Top of the Tube in Today's F*ST



     (The following is the complete text of CNN's Christiane
     Amanpour speech to the RTNDA2000 conventioneers.

     A regular edition of ShopTalk will return tomorrow, Tuesday
     September 19, 2000)

     "I remember the day I arrived at CNN with a suitcase, my
     bicycle and about 100 dollars...

     It was exciting... a band of young college graduates
     thinking we'd get some practical experience on the job,
     hoping it would be a steppingstone to the big leagues.

     Little did we know it would become the big league

     Because I am foreign I was assigned to the foreign desk. I
     kid you not. I was just the tea boy really, but I quickly
     announced innocently but ambitiously that I was going to be
     a foreign correspondent.

     I am sorry to say my first boss was a woman...if I had
     thought I would get a sympathetic hearing, some female
     solidarity, I was sorely mistaken. She hated me...made fun
     of my ambitions and basically said I would never make it at
     CNN...all character-building stuff.

     Well I worked my way up through every level...writer..
     producer...field producer...reporter...I managed to convert
     a few believers in management, and here I am.

     We thrived on the pioneer spirit of CNN...we adored being
     the little network that could....we loved the fact that we
     were mocked as chicken noodle we kicked ass all
     over the world. We were thrilled and privileged to be part
     of a revolution...because make no mistake about it...Ted
     Turner changed the world with CNN. Not only did he create
     24-hour news, and all that has meant, he truly created the
     global village. As corny as that may sound, nothing has
     been the same since.

     With all my youthful exuberance and all my high-faluting
     dreams...nothing really prepared me for the intensity of
     the work I have done over the past 10 years. I was an
     adventurer...I thought CNN would be my ticket to see the
     world, and be at the center of history.... On someone
     else's dime.!!!!!

     Well, it was...and I did...but soon the reality of the
     business I had chosen began to sink in.

     I have spent the past ten years in just about every war
     zone there was...I have made my living bearing witness to
     some of the most horrific events of the end of the 20th
     century. I am so identified with war and disaster that
     wherever I go these days. People joke....or perhaps
     not...that they shudder whenever they see me:

     Oh god...Amanpour is something bad happening to

     U.S. soldiers...with whom I now have more than a passing
     acquaintance...joke that they track my movements in order
     to know where they will be deployed next.

     I calculated that I have spent more time at the front than
     most normal military units.

     I have lost many friends, to the sniper, the mortar bomb,
     the landmine...the crazed Kalashnikov-wielding druggie at
     the checkpoint. It occurred to me that I have spent almost
     every working day of the past ten years living in a
     repressed state of fear. I very rarely talk about it
     because it is impossible to talk about....but I ask you
     tonight whether anyone in this room knows what it must be
     like to live on fear...fear of being shot...of being
     kidnapped, of being raped by some lunatic who hates your
     stories or blames you for bringing NATO bombs down around
     them. We manage the fear, but the strain takes its toll.
     And then there's the horror of what I have Rwanda
     piles of bodies lifted by bulldozer and dumped into mass
     graves. In Bosnia little children shot in the head by a guy
     who thinks it's okay to aim his gun at a child. In Somalia
     and Ethiopia, walking skeletons. And always the
     weeping....children, women, even men. These images and
     sounds are always with me.

     Yes I have often wondered why I...why we... do it? After a
     few seconds the answer used to come easily: because it
     matters, because the world will care once they see our
     stories...because if we the storytellers don't do this,
     then the bad guys will win. We do it because we are
     committed, because we are believers. One thing I knew for
     certain...I never could have sustained a relationship while
     I worked that hard, or was that driven by the story...

     Indeed in the full flush of journalistic conviction I once
     told an interviewer that of course I would never get
     married. And I definitely would never have children. If you
     have a child, I said, you have a responsibility to at least
     stay alive.

     That was seven years ago. I have been married two years and
     I have a five-month-old son.

     Before my son was born I used to joke about looking for
     bullet-proof Snugglies...Kevlar diapers...I was planning to
     take him on the road with me. At the very least I fully
     expected to keep up my hectic pace, and my passions a war
     correspondent....but now When I think of my son...and
     having to leave him...and I imagine him fixing his large
     innocent eyes on me and asking...mummy, why are you going
     to that weird place...what if they kill you...I wince.

     I know what I want to say...I want to say because I have
     to...because it matters...because mummy's going to tell the
     world about the bad guys and perhaps do a little good.

     But a strange thing has happened...something I never
     expected....motherhood has coincided with the demise of
     journalism as I knew it...I am no longer sure that when I
     go out there and do my'll even see the light of
     air...if the experience of my network colleagues is
     anything to go by. More times than I care to remember I
     have sympathized with too many colleagues assigned like
     myself, to some of the world's royal bad places. They would
     go through hell to do their pieces...only to frequently
     find them killed back in New York, because of some
     fascinating new twist that's been found on I don't
     know.....killer Twinkies or Fergie getting fatter, or
     something. I have always thought it morally unacceptable to
     kill stories that people have risked their lives to get.

     My son was barely two months old when two of my best
     friends and colleagues were murdered in an ambush in Sierra
     Leone. ...I was devastated and really angry...does anyone
     even know where Sierra Leone is? If not, why not? How
     many of you aired their footage?

     It made me think long and hard about what we do...I asked
     myself why do I still do it? Do I have anything left to
     prove? Am I a war junkie? Why do any of us do this? There
     are of course a lot of reasons....mostly a desire to do
     a bit of good, and the quaint notion that this is what we
     signed up for...this is the business we have chosen. If the
     storytellers give up, the bad people will certainly win.

     I am not alone in feeling really depressed about the state
     of the news today. A veteran BBC reporter, with supreme
     British understatement said recently is heading
     down rather a "curious corridor."

     A long-time, and highly awarded colleague of mine, has gotten out
of the business altogether, saying news and
     journalism died in the nineties. Now I do not share that much
pessimism...but something has got to change.

     All of us on this room share in this most ludicrous state
     of affairs. So much so that I recently carefully clipped
     the following cutting and just about slept with it under my
     pillow....WBBM-TV in Chicago is going back to basic
     journalism! A rare example of dog bites man actually being

     I don't dare ask how this radical experiment is doing in
     the ratings....all my fingers and toes are tightly crossed.

     You get the point....the powers that be...the money men,
     have decided over the last several years to eviscerate us.
     It actually costs a bit of money to produce good travel, to put on
     compelling viewing.

     But God forbid they should spend money on,
     let's just cheapskate our way into the most demeaning,
     irrelevant, super-hyped, sensationalism we can find. And
     then we wonder why people are tuning out in's
     not just the new competition, it's the drivel we spew into
     their living rooms.

     David Halberstam...recently wrote that journalism today is
     basically tailored to the shareholders.

     Perhaps all of you are raking in the profits...but let me
     throw down a challenge: what's the point of having all this
     money if we are simply going to drive ourselves into the
     ground? Makes you wonder about all those mega-mergers. Yes,
     you are running businesses but surely there is a level
     beyond which profit from news is simply indecent. We live
     in a society after all, not a marketplace. News is part of
     our communal experience...a public service. Surely a news
     operation should be the crown jewel of any
     corporation...the thing that makes a corporation feel good
     about itself. We all love "Millionaire," make your money off
that....make your super-dollars somewhere else.
     us alone, with only good competitive journalism as our
     benchmark. I know I do not need to remind you of all the
     quality programs that make money too...60-minutes,
     Nightline...are just a couple.

     No matter what the hocus-pocus focus groups tell you, time
     has proven that all the gimmicks and cheap journalism can
     only carry you so far. Remember the movie "Field of Dreams" when
     the voice said, "Build it and they will come."
     Well, tell a compelling story and they will watch.

     Lest you think these are woolly-headed musings ...we are
     not dinosaurs...we are the frontier. You've mastered the
     hardware...we are the software. And that will never change.

     Today's buzzwords seem to be content, and platforms. Well,
     we produce the content for all your different
     platforms...and that will never change. Humble newsprint,
     the New York Times, still rules the world. As someone else
     might have said, "It's the content stupid."

     You've invested so much money in technology...perhaps it's
     time to invest in you know how many
     people in newsrooms I know have a hard time even
     recognizing news anymore....

     I am personally thrilled by the changes at CNN, because it
     means we are responding to the times. I'm sure we will
     regain our unique niche, stop trying to be all things to
     all people, and find our way again to doing what we do
     best, what we alone can do...gather the news first, and
     send it out the farthest.

     Here in the United States, our profession is much maligned,
     but I work all over the world, where people actually see us
     as serious players. They take journalism seriously because
     they know what a force it can be. In emerging democracies
     like Russia, in authoritarian states like Iran, Yugoslavia,
     journalists play a critical role in civil society...they
     form the very basis of those new democracies and civil

     Russia's new president Vladimir Putin is hell-bent on
     silencing the voice of independent media, unless they toe
     his line. When he failed the test of leadership and lied to
     his own people when their nuclear submarine sank. It was
     Russian journalists who exposed the Kremlin's double talk
     and KGB-style propaganda: Russian journalists revealed
     there were in fact no survivors, no-one was hammering on
     the inside of the hull...Russian ships were not in fact
     supplying oxygen to the stranded crew, as officials
     repeatedly claimed.

     In Iran the whole reform and democracy movement has been
     based on the emerging free press. So powerful in fact that
     now the hard-line mullahs have cracked down, and closed
     down the outspoken new journalists.

     I am proud of the work western journalists did spurring Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor,
     bringing the famines of Ethiopia and Somalia to
     light...getting those people help....often our words
     and pictures are their only opening to the world.

     And there is so much good stuff being produced here in the
     United States....but think how much more of a contribution
     we could make to this great society if we weren't so
     dependent on what those hocus-pocus groups tell us people
     are not interested in...oh Americans don't care about
     serious news...oh Americans don't care about this
     presidential election....oh Americans don't care about
     foreign news. Oh Americans don't care about anything but
     contemplating their own navels.

     It's just flat out not true... what Americans don't care
     much about is the piffle we put on TV these days, what they
     don't care about is boring, irrelevant, badly told stories,
     and what they really hate is the presumption that they are
     too stupid to know the difference. That's why they are
     voting with their off switch.

     For example, why are we terrorizing the country at large
     leading with murder and mayhem when crime is actually on
     the decline?

     Why have we given George W Bush such an easy ride...until
     now...when actually his qualifications are questionable?

     The way the mass media treats the democratic process here
     must have a lot to do with the reason so many Americans are
     alienated from it. That's bad for the greatest country in
     the world, who seeks to project her values and beliefs
     around the world.

     I'm part English, part Iranian, and I have always had an
     outsiders' respect for the American people.... The way I
     tell my stories reflects that.

     It seems simple to me...if we have no respect for our
     viewers...then how can we have any respect for ourselves
     and what we's time the cost-cutters, the money-
     managers and the advertisers gave us room to operate
     in a way that is meaningful, otherwise we will soon be
     folding our tent, and slinking off into the sunset. No new
     media vehicle has ever killed off's the age
     of interactive, yet newspapers, radio, television, are all
     still here. But we the people are in danger of doing what
     no new technology has ever done, becoming extinct. Only we
     can stop it.

     I recently came across the following quote from the
     indomitable Martha Gelhorn...wife of Ernest Hemmingway
     (though she hated to be introduced that way) and war
     correspondent par excellence:

     "All my reporting life I have thrown small pebbles into a
     very large pond, and have no way of knowing whether any
     pebble caused the slightest ripple. I don't need to worry
     about that. My responsibility was the effort. I belong to
     a global fellowship, men and women, concerned with the
     welfare of the planet, and its least protected inhabitants.
     I plan to spend the rest of my years applauding that
     fellowship and cheering from the sidelines....good for you
     never give up."

     I still have many years left in me, but that's what I'll
     tell my son when he's old enough to torture me with painful
     questions. I'll tell him I am a believer and I believe that
     good journalism, good television, can make the world a
     better place....and yes...I believe good journalism is good

From: "Brasscheck" <>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 4:01 AM
Subject: Murder at wholesale prices

September 27, 2000

Murder at wholesale prices

When the world was a smaller place, I guess it was easy to ride into town and just kill everyone in sight Mongol-style.

Larger populations take more effort, especially if you're trying to keep your handiwork secret from the world.

The Nazis rounded up Jews and other minorities and sent them via box car to barb-wired concentration camps.

The US and its allies have developed a more economical solution: Turn the entire target country into an open air extermination camp. It saves on the barbed-wire, guard towers and incinerators.

Ken McCarthy


"Water flow to Iraq will be reduced by 40%..."

GLASGOW HERALD: The US-led allied forces deliberately destroyed Iraq's water
supply during the Gulf War - flagrantly breaking the Geneva Convention and causing thousands of civilian deaths. Since the war ended in 1991 the allied nations have made sure than any attempts to make contaminated water safe have been thwarted. A respected American professor now intends to convene expert hearings in a bid to pursue criminal indictments under international law against those responsible.

Professor Thomas J Nagy, Professor of Expert Systems at George Washington University with a doctoral fellowship in public health, told the Sunday Herald: "Those who saw nothing wrong in producing [this plan], those who ordered its production and those who knew about it and have remained silent for 10 years would seem to be in violation of federal statute and perhaps have even conspired to commit genocide." Professor Nagy obtained a minutely detailed seven-page document prepared by the US Defense Intelligence Agency, issued the day after the war started, entitled "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities" and circulated to all major allied Commands.

It states that Iraq had gone to considerable trouble to provide a supply of pure water to its population. It had to depend on importing specialized equipment and purification chemicals, since water is "heavily mineralized and frequently brackish". The report stated: "Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population.  This could lead to increased incidents, if not epidemics, of disease and certain pure-water dependent industries becoming incapacitated" The report concludes: "Full degradation of the water treatment system probably will take at least another six months."

During allied bombing campaigns on Iraq the country's eight multi-purpose dams had been repeatedly hit, simultaneously wrecking flood control, municipal and industrial water storage, irrigation and hydroelectric power. Four of seven major pumping stations were destroyed, as were 31 municipal water and sewerage facilities - 20 in Baghdad, resulting in sewage pouring into the Tigris. Water purification plants were incapacitated throughout Iraq.

Article 54 of the Geneva Convention states: "It is prohibited to attack, destroy or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population" and includes foodstuffs, livestock and "drinking water supplies and irrigation works."

The results of the allied bombing campaign were obvious when Dr David  Levenson visited Iraq immediately after the Gulf War, on behalf of  International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.

 He said: "For many weeks people in Baghdad - without television, radio,  or newspapers to warn them - brought their drinking water from the  Tigris, in buckets.

 "Dehydrated from nausea and diarrhea, craving liquids, they drank more of the water that made them sick in the first place."

 Water-borne diseases in Iraq today are both endemic and epidemic. They  include typhoid, dysentery, hepatitis, cholera and polio (which had  previously been eradicated), along with a litany of others.

 A child with dysentery in 1990 had a one in 600 chance of dying - in 1999  it was one in 50.

 The then US Navy Secretary John Lehman estimated that 200,000 Iraqis  died in the Gulf War. Dr Levenson estimates many thousands died from polluted water.

 Chlorine and essential equipment parts needed to repair and clear the  water system have been banned from entering the country under the UN  "hold"system.

 Ohio Democrat Representative Tony Hall has written to American  Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, saying he shares concerns expressed by Unicef about the "profound effects the deterioration of Iraq's  water supply and sanitation systems on children's health". Diarrheal  diseases he says are of "epidemic proportions" and are "the prime killer of  children under five".

 "Holds on contracts for water and sanitation are a prime reason for the  increase in sickness and death." Of 18 contracts, wrote Hall, all but one on hold were placed by the government in the US.

 Contracts were for purification chemicals, chlorinators, chemical dosing  pumps, water tankers and other water industry related items.

 "If water remains undrinkable, diseases will continue and mortality rates  will rise," said the Iraqi trade minister Muhammed Mahdi Salah. The country's health ministry said that more than 10,000 people died in July of  embargo-related causes - 7457 were children, with diarrheal diseases one of the prime conditions.

 In July 1989, the figure was 378. Unicef does not dispute the figures.

 The problem will not be helped by plans for the giant Ilisu Dam project (to  which the British government is to give £200 million in export credit  guarantees), which will give Turkey entire control of the water flow to Iraq  and Syria.

Constructors Balfour Beatty write in their environmental impact report,  that for the three years of construction, water flow to Iraq will be reduced by 40%. Iraq has also suffered a three year drought, with the Tigris the lowest in living memory.

Sunday Times, London 9/25/00

THE CIA may have misled Scottish prosecutors involved in the Lockerbie trial over the status of one of the two men accused of the biggest mass murders in British criminal history.

It has emerged that the American intelligence agency did not consider Al-Amin Khalifa Fhimah, 44, to be a Libyan intelligence agent. Yet the indictment which charges him and his co-accused, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, 48, with the murder of 270 people starts with the premise that both men were members of the Libya's External Security Organisation (ESO). The revelation appears to leave the case in jeopardy as the bond of trust between Scottish and American officials may be irreparably damaged.

Senior sources have confirmed that from the early days of the investigation, American officials handled the bulk of the inquiries relating to international intelligence. Scottish prosecutors accepted the evidence of the CIA in good faith.

One source said: "There is no possibility that prosecutors who drafted the indictment would knowingly include a false premise. There is a lot of anger over this."

The three Scottish judges sitting at the specially constructed court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands last week heard incontrovertible evidence of the CIA's mendacity from documents supplied by the agency itself.

The trial reconvened on Thursday after a three-week adjournment prompted by the desire of the defence teams to have access to CIA documents.When it did, Richard Keen QC, who acts for Fhimah, told the court of a meeting between himself, William Taylor QC, who represents Megrahi, and two CIA officials.

The meeting, held in May before the trial started, discussed telegrams that the CIA had made available to the crown, and which the defence had been allowed to see. Keen quoted the two officials as saying in turn: "You have all the cables, not a selection."

In July, the defence team learned that this was not true. Despite assurances from the lord advocate, Colin Boyd, that the material not passed on was irrelevant to the defence, the judges instructed him to seek the release of additional cables.

Keen pointed out: "We have now been given not one or two further cables, but 36 . . . The content . . . is highly material to the crown case against the accused."

Keen said: "It is noted that the second accused is not an ESO staff officer . . . although my lords will be aware that the entire indictment proceeds upon his membership of that organisation."

In a further blow to the crown case, the cables cast considerable doubt over the role of Abdul Majid Giaka, the crown's star witness.

In 1988, Giaka was employed at Luqa airport in Malta by Libyan Arab Airlines alongside the two accused. Since July 1991, he has lived in America under the federal witness protection scheme having offered investigators apparently compelling evidence linking the accused to the destruction of Pan Am 103 in 1988.

But the CIA cables released to the defence reveal that Giaka had offered the Americans no information about Pan Am 103 up to 1991. In addition, he had failed to identify the individual who purchased clothing in a shop in Malta that was found in the suitcase that carried the bomb. Investigators allege the buyer was Megrahi, who was well known to Giaka.

In the most telling speech of the trial so far, Keen spoke of Giaka's departure from Malta to the US in July 1991. "It is apparent from the last two cables that Majid Giaka was in fear that the CIA might abandon him as being no further use; that he would not return to Libya; that he feared for his life; and that if he stayed in Malta, he feared he would be turned over to Libya for cash."

Robert Black, the professor of Scots law at Edinburgh University who devised the model for a Scottish court to sit abroad, said: "It has to be considered relevant that up until 1991 Giaka had given the CIA nothing of substance. Then, when he was in fear for his life, everything changed. From the cables, Giaka is condemned as unreliable by his own CIA handlers."

The trial resumes on Tuesday when Giaka is expected to give evidence.